The Technological Singularity and super intelligence revolution

[Monoriu]

I don't think a post-scarcity world is possible or desirable.  The amount of matter available to humans is finite.  The surface area of the Earth is finite.  But human numbers or desire are infinite.  How can you satisfy everybody's desire to own property the size of a theme park? 

Besides, I think scarcity is one of the most important driving force behind humanity's progress.  If you take away the carrot and the stick, the donkey won't have incentive to move forward.   

[Eddie Teach]

Besides, I think scarcity is one of the most important driving force behind humanity's progress.  If you take away the carrot and the stick, the donkey won't have incentive to move forward.

Don't disregard humanity's ability to create artificial carrots.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, but there is certain things you can't create.  Real estate can not be produce in a machine.  For people who say " I want a house on the sea shore in Florida", there will always be shortages so long as there are enough people.  "Sure", the Singularity kook will say, "but you can up load your mind into a computer where there is an infinite space."  Which doesn't actually solve the problem for me, though depending on how it's done it may involve killing me.  So I guess it solves my problem that way.

[DGuller]

It would appear to be a problem of kind rather then degree.  If you sped up a dog's brain you wouldn't have a dog who thinks like a man, you would just have dog that's particularly quick on his feet.  To build this "god computer" you would need to program it to be able think in ways that human beings can't imagine.  That would appear to be impossible by definition.

I'm not sure about that.  You seem to be assuming that computers cannot recognize patterns with them first being programmed by humans.  That is already not true.  There are already machine learning algorithm that can recognize patterns better than humans can, and machine learning field is still in its infancy.  Obviously humans need to program the learning algorithms, but I don't see why it's obvious that they can't come up with an algorithm that can be self-improving.

[Razgovory]

I'm thinking of "big leaps" in cognitive functioning.  Take a dog.  A dog can't read.  Even a smart dog can't read.  A dog can't comprehend the the idea of reading.  The understanding that abstract symbols can mean something forever beyond the dog, so not only can the dog not read, he can't even know that he can't.  Extrapolate that to human beings.  A human being can't "x".  Not only can the human being not "x", he doesn't know what "x" is, that "x" exists as a concept, and that he can never "x".  Now, how does he go about programming a computer to "x"?  It's not a matter of a computer doing something better then humans, it's doing something that humans can't.  Any computer built by human being is going to be limited in the same ways that the humans are limited.

[DGuller]

I'm thinking of "big leaps" in cognitive functioning.  Take a dog.  A dog can't read.  Even a smart dog can't read.  A dog can't comprehend the the idea of reading.  The understanding that abstract symbols can mean something forever beyond the dog, so not only can the dog not read, he can't even know that he can't.  Extrapolate that to human beings.  A human being can't "x".  Not only can the human being not "x", he doesn't know what "x" is, that "x" exists as a concept, and that he can never "x".  Now, how does he go about programming a computer to "x"?

One difference is that a dog cannot be reprogrammed.

It's not a matter of a computer doing something better then humans, it's doing something that humans can't.  Any computer built by human being is going to be limited in the same ways that the humans are limited.

As I already said, that's not true.  I have created statistical models that I myself do not understand, as in I don't understand why they do better than anything I can think of manually (well, I understand the big picture of why, but not the details of why).  They can get at latent variables by using a complicated combination of known variables, something that I can't conceive of.  The best-performing statistical models are usually black boxes created by machine learning algorithms.

[Razgovory]

When you say you don't understand the model is beyond all human understanding or just yours?  Are human beings biologically incapable of understanding it?  If so, what good is it?

[DGuller]

When you say you don't understand the model is beyond all human understanding or just yours?

I can't speak for all the human beings, but it's a generally acceptable principle that the kinds of models I built are not easily interpretable.  And given that I was the human that built it, and not some other human, my level of understanding of my own model seems to be the most relevant one.

Are human beings biologically incapable of understanding it?  If so, what good is it?

It predicts outcomes better than models humans can understand.

[alfred russel]

The singularity is imminent, and it will develop from statistical models. Actuaries will be the priests serving as our intermediaries with our new overlords.

[DGuller]

The singularity is imminent, and it will develop from statistical models. Actuaries will be the priests serving as our intermediaries with our new overlords.

I'm a data scientist now. 

[alfred russel]

The singularity is imminent, and it will develop from statistical models. Actuaries will be the priests serving as our intermediaries with our new overlords.

I'm a data scientist now. 

I know. Data scientists will be the altar boys to the priests.

[DGuller]

The singularity is imminent, and it will develop from statistical models. Actuaries will be the priests serving as our intermediaries with our new overlords.

I'm a data scientist now. 

I know. Data scientists will be the altar boys to the priests.

[Razgovory]

When you say you don't understand the model is beyond all human understanding or just yours?

I can't speak for all the human beings, but it's a generally acceptable principle that the kinds of models I built are not easily interpretable.  And given that I was the human that built it, and not some other human, my level of understanding of my own model seems to be the most relevant one.

Are human beings biologically incapable of understanding it?  If so, what good is it?

It predicts outcomes better than models humans can understand.

Okay, that's difference of degree rather then kind.  It increases the capability that a human already has, rather then giving an entirely new ability.  You can make a computer that is better able find patterns better then a human, but you can't make a computer that can find patterns that human can't comprehend.

Let's say computer falls from space and is able to predict the future.  It analyzes the clouds, how many kitten videos are on youtube, and pigment of dandelions and concludes you will be hit by a truck in 2,618 days.  None of that makes sense to us.  It is essentially magic.  The computer is finding patterns beyond human comprehension.  Humans will never be able to understand that.  Yet this is the kind of "Big leap" that these singularity computers are suppose to make.  They would be from our point of view magic, now how do you program a computer to do this kind of magic?  You don't.  And make no mistake, the singularity is magic.  It's suppose to spirit us away to a world of immortality and plenty.

[DGuller]

I think you're repeating the same argument for the third time, without really addressing my counter-argument.  Yes, computers can find patterns we can't comprehend, and on that basis can do better than human already at certain tasks.  Yes, they're starting with a learning algorithm a human programmed, but they take it from there and go further.

[alfred russel]

Let's say computer falls from space and is able to predict the future.  It analyzes the clouds, how many kitten videos are on youtube, and pigment of dandelions and concludes you will be hit by a truck in 2,618 days.  None of that makes sense to us.  It is essentially magic.  The computer is finding patterns beyond human comprehension.  Humans will never be able to understand that. 

Why?

It seems logical that if we understand all the rules of the physical world, and have rather comprehensive information of the world as it is, and immense amounts of data processing, we could predict quite a bit. That wouldn't be magic.